State vs Individual Morality

An individual can embrace non-violence and accept non-retaliation as a personal principle, but a state cannot. States have to act for the larger good, and a "nation will have to take recourse to all means to protect itself."

Power doctrine of Ajit Doval: Why it is much better than empty

We have not seen much clarity in Indian strategic thinking despite the coming and going of governments.
Maybe, this is now changing. Ajit Doval, our National Security Advisor (NSA), spoke in Mumbai
yesterday (4 August) on "State Security, statecraft and Conflict of Values", and he had this to say: "India
has a mentality to punch below its weight. We should not punch below our weight or above our weight,
but improve our weight and punch proportionately."
This is a simple, if not all that original, statement on the importance of wielding power effectively
­ something Indians have seldom thought through in over 5,000 years of civilisational history, despite
indulging in periodic speculation about the true nature of power. If Doval and his boss Narendra Modi
convert this principle into strategic thought and purposive action on the ground, India will be a safer
place in the longer term.
Among other things, Doval pointed out the obvious: weak states invite trouble rather than mitigate or
combat it. "If you make a provocation, you are partly responsible. But if you are not able to exercise
power, it is as good as not having it," The Indian Express quotes him as saying. This again is something
that is obvious to all but those who substitute emotion for clear­headed thinking ­ and especially those
peaceniks who believe lighting candles at Wagah or offering unilateral concessions will bring peace with
Pakistan. This is useful idiocy from Pakistan's point of view, but won't do much for the security of
Indians.

An individual
can embrace non­violence and accept non­retaliation as a personal principle.when a state acts in a judicial way (through) the due process of law. Doval said: "The
first duty of the government of India is to protect itself. but leave us
naked when confronted with the external. We developed ambivalent attitudes to
power and we are still uncomfortable with its acquisition and use for temporal ends. Ajit Doval. Buddhism and
Jainism asked themselves a key question about power and its durability. meaningless life.
and it does not reduce you to murderers. conflict of interest is
automatic. In this protection. We are paying the price regularly for this. and in the
process reduced ourselves to ineffective and weak statehood.
Indic philosophers saw power as transient and decided (by and large) that the only power worth having is
the power over ourselves ­ since that directly impacts the quality of our inner and outer lives. was some kind of "state­sponsored killing". physical power of our enemies. conquest of ego. but to talk about the usual Indian ambivalence about power and its concomitants. States
have to act for the larger good. he meant the Indian state and not a specific government.
The truth is not that the west was right and we were wrong.
Our failure to seek a balance between power over oneself and long­term state power has resulted in our
. its actions are correct. Both recognised the transient nature of individual power ­ ultimately we all die.. They came to opposite
conclusions. Hence our emphasis
on meditation.
if the west is adopting yoga and meditation as lifestyle choices. individual dharma ­ all of which empower us spiritually.
We have allowed all issues relating to power to degenerate into issues of personal morality..)
The point of quoting Doval at length is not to justify the Memon hanging or to indulge in macho muscle­
flexing about terrorism. even without losing our belief in inner spiritual growth.
The Abrahamic religions (and the resultant civilisations) and Indic faiths like Hinduism. and a "nation will have to take recourse to all means to protect itself. powerless
to change our fate ­ but the conclusions we drew from this realisation have made a huge difference to our
attitudes to it. convicted for the 1993
Mumbai blasts. as Shashi Tharoor tweeted. We have to learn the opposite lesson: how to
use real power for long­term benefit to society. it is because they see the pointlessness of
having money and power and an empty. We thus
became "seekers" of truth rather than "believers" in absolute truths. AFP
Doval also made an important distinction between individual morality and state actions."
He also pointed out the silliness of assertions that hanging Yakub Memon. Today.
The west looked at power and its transient nature and saw the need to make it last ­ and they developed
law and institutions to perpetuate power beyond one lifetime." (Note: One presumes when Doval talked of the government of
India. but that both approaches are needed. but a state cannot.

both action and reaction. To cut a long story short (you can read a summary of his experiments here). What
may be true for individual violence may not be true for societies and the state. His experiments tried
to establish whether opponents tried to cooperate or cheat when they were unclear about the other
person's real intent. we may both become blind and
toothless. racist Winston Churchill had better ideas than hyper­moral Gandhi.embracing soft options and temporary non­solutions as a substitute for strategy and long­term thinking. Thus eyes and teeth get better protection. and win the fascist dictator over through love and peaceable activities.
Gandhi's advice to the victims of Hitler's aggression was something like this: throw yourself at his mercy. the players can
learn to cooperate. and I break your teeth and you return the compliment. Axelrod invited game theorists to submit strategies for testing in computer­
simulated games to check whether being saintly is a substitute for being sensible. oversimplifying. Personal morality that results in failure (or
success) only affects one individual; when it applies to society or state. and
explicit in our tendency to confuse arguments about power with arguments about personal morality. you pay him back in the same coin.
don't fight. of course. both
learn that there is no gain in taking the other's eye or knocking out his tooth. This is not to say
Gandhi was wrong. hastening the religion's demise.
This is evident in our wariness about the acquisition of economic and military power even today. he quotes Dr BR Ambedkar to show how internally focused
Buddhism failed to note the threat of Muslim invaders and their iconoclastic zeal. the
strategy that won more often than not was “tit­for­tat”. and over time. That is. for it is not true that Indian philosophers and empire builders did not seek
this balance (Chanakya Niti is one example of the kind of thought that went into creating the ideal state
using varied elements of power). Nehruvian policies ­ of high moral principles
and a low ability to live up to them ­ are a direct outgrowth of Gandhi's predilections. When it came to
dealing with Hitler.
.
This was clearly established in game theory experiments conducted by Robert Axelrod in 1980 at the
University of Michigan. but advice that may be all right for an individual to apply to himself may not be right
when applied thoughtlessly to others ­ or the whole of society. In short. Both states proceed to protect
themselves from going blind or toothless.
Gandhi typified this attitude best.
Nothing illustrates our own current self­defeating attitudes to power and morality better than the
arguments we have heard over the death penalty. If I hit you in the eye and
you hit me back. the
invaders destroyed all Buddhist monasteries and idols of the Buddha. it can lead to disaster. When
eye­for­eye and tooth­for­tooth. continue for some time between two combating
societies or their respective states.
In Arun Shourie's book Eminent Historians. both learn to start acting more carefully. In one fell swoop. I
am. mutual strength
creates mutual deterrence over time ­ and leads to a durable peace. but the overall failure to harness power and put it to good use has been
very visible in Indian history ­ and endures to this day. all players should try good faith in the
first instance. Those who want to end the death penalty are fond of
quoting Gandhi's observation that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will leave the whole world
blind and toothless. Over time. but if the rival plays dirty. He considered Jesus's Sermon on The Mount ­ a sermon for losers that
extolled the virtues of meekness ­ as his guiding principle. But this is not what happens to the larger society when a tit­for­tat policy is followed.
Passivism and lack of real power played a key role in Buddhism's extinguishment from the land of its
birth.
Gandhi clearly did not understand game theory and the practical outcomes of his personal morality.

where
winning and losing can be defined by each person. and
as we have repeatedly found out by treating Pakistan with kid gloves.
it is weak by definition. Does Israel believe in rolling with the punches or give it back in double
measure? They retaliate. An inability to hit back in the societal or national
context will. After all. A
strong state puts law and institutions above the individual and thus can act benevolently in practice; a
weak state will be tyrannous in reality as it cannot be held accountable for failing to do its job.
weakness equals immorality. but the
creation of a strong state. Individual
Christians may be willing to be fed to the lions in pursuit of their moral ideals.
.
The reason is simple: the west has learnt to separate personal morality from state morality.The Gandhian argument of blindness and toothlesses is valid only in the individual context. on the other hand. When it comes to the state. actually invite attacks ­ as Nehru found out with the Chinese in 1962. they fight. but the state will never
throw its citizens to external lions for the sake of peace. through law and institutions. A strong state with the ability to
give as good as it gets is a pre­requisite for peace.
The west's answer to the transient nature of power was to make it endure not through individuals.
Only a strong state can wield power sensibly and punch at its true weight. No Muslim state will ever talk peace if it feels
wronged ­ whether the wrong is real or imagined. No Christian majority nation ­ from America to Britain to any member of the
European Union ­ will ever turn the other cheek when hit.
Now consider what the true inheritors think of Jesus's Sermon on the Mount actually do as opposed to
what they profess. This is an important lesson for us to learn. Did George Bush turn the other cheek after
9/11? He hit back twice as hard. they try to win.